On multiple agencies: when do things matter?

References

• Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. E. Bijker, J. Law, W. E. Bijker, & J. Law (Eds.), Inside technology. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259–264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. The William James lectures (Vol. 1955). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blok, A., & Jensen, T. E. (2011). Bruno Latour: Hybrid thoughts in a hybrid world. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bloomfield, B. P., Latham, Y., & Vurdubakis, T. (2010). Bodies, technologies and action possibilities Sociology, 44(3), 415–433. doi: 10.1177/0038038510362469
   Google Scholar
• Caronia, L., & Cooren, F. (2014). Decentering our analytical position: The dialogicity of things. Discourse and Communication, 8(1), 41–61. doi: 10.1177/1750481313503226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caronia, L., & Mortari, L. (2015). The agency of things: How spaces and artefacts organize the moral order of an intensive care unit. Social Semiotics, 25(4), 401–422. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2015.1059576
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooren, F. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11(3), 373–393. doi: 10.1177/1350508404041998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooren, F. (2010). Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism. Dialogue studies (Vol. 6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
   Google Scholar
• Cooren, F. (2012). Communication theory at the Center: Ventriloquism and the Communicative Constitution of Reality. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01622.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooren, F. (2015). Studying agency from a ventriloqual perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(3), 475–480. doi: 10.1177/0893318915584825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230. doi: 10.1017/S174413741000024X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, J. L. (2015). Theorizing Affordances. Retrieved from https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2015/02/16/theorizing-affordances/
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J. L., & Chouinard, J. B. (2016). Theorizing affordances: From request to refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(4), 241–248. doi: 10.1177/0270467617714944
   Google Scholar
• Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faraj, S., & Azad, B. (2012). The Materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 237–258). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Harman, G. (2009). Prince of networks: Bruno Latour and metaphysics. Melbourne: re: press.
   Google Scholar
• Harré, R. (2002). Material objects in social Worlds. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6), 23–33. doi: 10.1177/026327640201900502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennion, A. (2017). Attachments, you say? … How a concept collectively emerges in one research group. Journal of Cultural Economy, 10(1), 112–121. doi: 10.1080/17530350.2016.1260629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Høstaker, R. (2005). Latour – semiotics and Science studies. Science Studies, 18(2), 5–25.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456. doi: 10.1017/S0038038501000219
   Google Scholar
• Introna, L., & Hayes, N. (2011). On sociomaterial imbrications: What plagiarism detection systems reveal and why it matters. Information and Organization, 21(2), 107–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarzabkowski, P., & Pinch, T. (2013). Sociomateriality is ‘the New Black’: Accomplishing repurposing, reinscripting and repairing in context. Management (France), 16(5), 579–592.
   Google Scholar
• Klowait, N. (2018). The quest for appropriate models of human-likeness: Anthropomorphism in media equation research. AI & SOCIETY, 33(4), 527–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knorr Cetina, K. (1997). Sociality with objects. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(4), 1–30. doi: 10.1177/026327697014004001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanamäki, A., Thapa, D., & Stendal, K. (2016). When is an affordance? Outlining four stances. In L. Introna, D. Kavanagh, S. Kelly, W. Orlikowski, & S. Scott (Eds.), IFIP advances in Information and communication technology. Beyond Interpretivism? New Encounters with technology and Organization: IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations, IS&O 2016, Dublin, Ireland, December 9-10, 2016, Proceedings (1st ed., pp. 125–139). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker, & J. Law (Eds.), Inside technology. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation: Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228–245.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1997). Trains of thought: Piaget, formalism and the fifth dimension. Common Knowledge, 6(3), 170–191.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Clarendon lectures in management studies. Oxford, NA: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2014). Gabriel tarde and the end of the social. In P. Joyce (Ed.), The social in question. New bearings in History and the social sciences (pp. 117–132). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2016). How better to register the agency of things: Part 1, semiotics, part 2, ontology: Tanner Lectures, Yale, March 2014. In M. Matheson (Ed.), The Tanner lectures on human values (Vol. 34, pp. 79–117). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B., Harman, G., & Erdélyi, P. (2011). The prince and the wolf: Latour and Harman at the LSE / Graham Harman, Peter Erdélyi and Bruno Latour. Ropley: Zero.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B., Jensen, P., Venturini, T., Grauwin, S., & Boullier, D. (2012). ‘The whole is always smaller than its parts’ – a digital test of Gabriel Tardes’ monads. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 590–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law, J. (2009). Actor-network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), Blackwell companions to sociology. The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 141–158). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (Eds.). (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martine, T., & Cooren, F. (2016). A relational approach to materiality and organizing: The case of a creative idea. In L. Introna, D. Kavanagh, S. Kelly, W. Orlikowski, & S. Scott (Eds.), IFIP advances in Information and communication technology. Beyond Interpretivism? New Encounters with technology and Organization: IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations, IS&O 2016, Dublin, Ireland, December 9-10, 2016, Proceedings (1st ed., Vol. 489, pp. 143–166). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-49733-4_9
   Google Scholar
• McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings from graphics interface 2000. Montreal, QC. Retrieved from http://teaching.polishedsolid.com/spring2006/iti/read/affordances.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Meunier, D., & Vasquez, C. (2008). On Shadowing the hybrid character of actions: A communicational approach. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(3), 167–192. doi: 10.1080/19312450802310482
   Google Scholar
• Pels, D., Hetherington, K., & Vandenberghe, F. (2002). The status of the object. Theory, Culture and Society, 19(5-6), 1–21, +27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, A. (2017). In our place: Performance, dualism, and islands of stability. Common Knowledge, 23(3), 381–395. doi: 10.1215/0961754X-3987761
   Google Scholar
• Schraube, E. (2009). Technology as materialized action and its ambivalences. Theory & Psychology, 19(2), 296–312. doi: 10.1177/0959354309103543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strathern, M. (1996). Cutting the network. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2(3), 517–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundar, S. S., & Nass, C. (2000). Source orientation in human-computer interaction. Communication Research, 27(6), 683–703. doi: 10.1177/009365000027006001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thevenot, L. (2002). Which road to follow? The moral complexity of an ‘equipped’ humanity. In J. Law, & A. Mol (Eds.), Science and cultural theory. Complexities: Social studies of knowledge practices (pp. 53–87). Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thevenot, L. (2007). The plurality of cognitive formats and engagements. European Journal of Social Theory, 10(3), 409–423. doi: 10.1177/1368431007080703
   Google Scholar
• Tresch, J. (2013). Another turn after ANT: An interview with Bruno Latour. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), 302–313. doi: 10.1177/0306312712468362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urry, J. (2003). Global complexity. Malden, MA: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Vakhshtayn, V. (2017). Reassembling the everyday: Drones, elevators, and the MT-1 project. Logos (Russian Federation), 27(2), 1–48. doi: 10.22394/0869-5377-2017-2-1-44
   Google Scholar
• Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar